Live data from Hacker News

Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

sfstandard.com

231–240 of 264 posts

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea. The "What's going to be taboo in 30 years" question is a good one. I don't know and I don't have a good answer to that. I personally don't worry about it because it's never occurred to me to walk up close to the line of what's acceptable. I have pretty vanilla opinions. But, for today, I always wonder when someone says they are going to be harassed for their opinions. Just what opinions are we talking about, her…

If you’re an Ivy League college professor, it is extremely risky to say that Palestine has a legitimate grievance against Israel. If you’re a small town high school coach, it would be smart to be careful about advocating for trans girls to be able to play on the girls team. You can be punished for opinions on various sides of the political spectrum.

If you're coaching a girls' team and you advocate that boys who say they are girls should be allowed to play on the team too, then that should be grounds for dismissal from the coaching role, as you'd be disadvantaging the girls on the team that you're supposed to be supporting.

This would be an entirely warranted "punishment for opinions" because of your failure to adequately safeguard young female athletes.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There are two genders." The belief comes from watching birds and bees. Now, say that in 2020 in a woke software organization.

Saying that repeatedly in most settings gets tedious for the audience who'd wonder whether you're alright. Saying that any relevant technical setting as a newcomer would likely be received politely although many would then point out the ground truth behind that simplification: Nature has many examples of physical gender not being straightforward; egg tempreture determining development in crocadiles and other reptiles…

> > "There are two genders." The belief comes from watching birds and bees.

> Nature has many examples of physical gender not being straightforward; egg tempreture determining development in crocadiles and other reptiles for one.

Temperature-dependent sex determination results in offspring of one sex or the other, so how does this refute the observation across species that there are two sexes? Please explain your reasoning.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#233
Presumably I don't understand current norms, but this is some pretty bizarre stuff. So people have rediscovered the basic rules of civility and it's taking the world by storm? There needs to be an explicit statement that when you're somewhere you've been invited that you shouldn't publicize what the other guests have said in order to do them harm?

Do the people who think this it is sensible to live like this even have a name for the toxic brew in which they're swimming?

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#234
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh. I have seen these debates long enough to see that there is a lot of truth in that judgement. We are supposed to give infinite benefit of the doubt to people even after it is super clear what it is that they are saying. I have seen these paranoid SJW accusations to .... turn out truth enough times already. Turns out, people who say these things are the ones who actually listen with comprehension to what is being…

> Meh. I have seen these debates long enough to see that there is a lot of truth in that judgement. There are fair cases of dog-whistle racism. But that is the person who is indeed racist and not necessarily everyone who falls to the whistle or happens to be next to that person. The problem is that this approach creates divisive politics. Typically division would make sense if you're cutting off the terrible people.…

> The problem is that this approach creates divisive politics.

No, this approach is making the existing division visible. The other approach is to politely ignore it and not talk about it, if you are anti racist be silent about what you see. Allow them to promote its politics and representants, do not object, do not point out to the obvious.

And that is pretty much how abortion protections got removed - "reasonable mainstream" was mocked for telling the truth and supposed to pretend republicans do not plan to destroy them until it was inevitable.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#235
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meh. I have seen these debates long enough to see that there is a lot of truth in that judgement. There are fair cases of dog-whistle racism. But that is the person who is indeed racist and not necessarily everyone who falls to the whistle or happens to be next to that person. The problem is that this approach creates divisive politics. Typically division would make sense if you're cutting off the terrible people.…

> The problem is that this approach creates divisive politics. No, this approach is making the existing division visible. The other approach is to politely ignore it and not talk about it, if you are anti racist be silent about what you see. Allow them to promote its politics and representants, do not object, do not point out to the obvious. And that is pretty much how abortion protections got removed - "reasonable m…

No. The other approach is to talk about it. Not make things more extreme. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis

This is the only effective way to end racism and hate. The problem is that you pool too many people together as "racist" which eliminates the power of the word and sends them into a position of "I'll be hated by the left no matter what I do so I'll go full on".

This strategy has objectively not worked. More Latinos voted for Trump in this election even though his rhetoric got MUCH worse. He wants to deport 18M people and revoke citizenship. Yet, they still voted for him in much larger numbers. Women whose rights were denied voted for him. Why?

You can say they're all stupid and indeed there are quite a lot of those. But the fact is that saying to a person that he, all his friends, family and community are evil and racist doesn't bring that person to your side. It pushes them further down that bad path. It might be satisfying to confront a person in a "good vs. evil" scenario, but that doesn't fix the problem and makes everything worse.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying that repeatedly in most settings gets tedious for the audience who'd wonder whether you're alright. Saying that any relevant technical setting as a newcomer would likely be received politely although many would then point out the ground truth behind that simplification: Nature has many examples of physical gender not being straightforward; egg tempreture determining development in crocadiles and other reptiles…

> > "There are two genders." The belief comes from watching birds and bees. > Nature has many examples of physical gender not being straightforward; egg tempreture determining development in crocadiles and other reptiles for one. Temperature-dependent sex determination results in offspring of one sex or the other, so how does this refute the observation across species that there are two sexes? Please explain your rea…

I guess it contradicts the belief that sex is determined at conception? I don't know, I'm not familiar with crocodile biology.

For humans specifically we not only have xx and xy, but also xxx, xyy, xxxx, xxyy, xxxxx, xxxxy, 46xy dsd. There is a de la Chapelle syndrome, persistent Müllerian duct syndrome and more. These are just the most obvious things that muddy the waters, and I don't really know much about that topic, but confidently saying "there are two genders and you can tell by watching birds and bees" is anti intellectual

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#237
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that this approach creates divisive politics. No, this approach is making the existing division visible. The other approach is to politely ignore it and not talk about it, if you are anti racist be silent about what you see. Allow them to promote its politics and representants, do not object, do not point out to the obvious. And that is pretty much how abortion protections got removed - "reasonable m…

No. The other approach is to talk about it. Not make things more extreme. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis This is the only effective way to end racism and hate. The problem is that you pool too many people together as "racist" which eliminates the power of the word and sends them into a position of "I'll be hated by the left no matter what I do so I'll go full on". This strategy has objectively not wor…

Calling things what they are is talking about it. What you want is to enable one side and castigate the other for telling anything mildly bad about the one choose side. If many people are racists, yep that word will cover many people. There is nothing weird or wrong about it.

Latinos who voted for Trump did it because they are very conservative, have a thing against blacks/arabs and like Trumps personality. Effectively very similar reasons to why non latinos vote for Trump.

> Women whose rights were denied voted for him. Why?

Trump is a lot more popular among men then among women. That is the first thing. Second, yes there are women who deny some rights like abortion for women, that is not shocking new development or something.

> But the fact is that saying to a person that he, all his friends, family and community are evil and racist doesn't bring that person to your side. It pushes them further down that bad path.

Pretending racism is not racism and enabling racism and enabling it does not make these people less racist either. It makes you more like them and it makes middle more like them.

Indeed, what happens and happened is that their opinions are the ones primary being heard, those who oppose are mocked by those who want to be seen as enlightened. What happens is that their real goals are ignored untill they achieve them.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#238
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that this approach creates divisive politics. No, this approach is making the existing division visible. The other approach is to politely ignore it and not talk about it, if you are anti racist be silent about what you see. Allow them to promote its politics and representants, do not object, do not point out to the obvious. And that is pretty much how abortion protections got removed - "reasonable m…

No. The other approach is to talk about it. Not make things more extreme. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis This is the only effective way to end racism and hate. The problem is that you pool too many people together as "racist" which eliminates the power of the word and sends them into a position of "I'll be hated by the left no matter what I do so I'll go full on". This strategy has objectively not wor…

I will add: Trump did not won by being nice and accommodating to leftists. Trump won by being accusatory and aggressive. Trump won by treating "suckers" badly.

Trump winning is the ultimate proof that what you suggest is a loosing strategy.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#239
post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The other approach is to talk about it. Not make things more extreme. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis This is the only effective way to end racism and hate. The problem is that you pool too many people together as "racist" which eliminates the power of the word and sends them into a position of "I'll be hated by the left no matter what I do so I'll go full on". This strategy has objectively not wor…

Calling things what they are is talking about it. What you want is to enable one side and castigate the other for telling anything mildly bad about the one choose side. If many people are racists, yep that word will cover many people. There is nothing weird or wrong about it. Latinos who voted for Trump did it because they are very conservative, have a thing against blacks/arabs and like Trumps personality. Effective…

> Pretending racism is not racism and enabling racism and enabling it does not make these people less racist either

Again. Not what I said.

I think what you heard me say is appeasement. Which is VERY MUCH not what I said. I said you should avoid instant judgement which goes against the basic process of persuasion.

I said talking to people and not judging them immediately. Asking instead of confronting. If you start by calling someone a racist his shields go up and he won't listen to you. What did you accomplish by the attack?

Nothing. You didn't change his mind. You preached to the quire. People who hear you either agree with you and people who disagree with you think you're an ahole. Everyone digs deeper into what they already believe and become more entrenched/hostile.

If your goal is to keep people in their positions and prevent change then sure, that would work. You can virtue signal and position yourself as the "good guy".

My goal is to understand people and communicate with them. Even people who might be "bad" or uninterested in communicating/changing their mind. To do that I try to interact without being too judgemental. That's hard sometimes when I read some pretty horrible stuff from some people. E.g. I had a recent debate where a guy implied that me and all of my family should be dead or homeless (I'm an Israeli) so that's hard to reconcile and indeed we didn't reach a reasonable understanding because I feel he wasn't open to another point of view. He was just looking to prove his point (which is pretty insane if his point is I should die).

But it's still a conversation worth having. Understanding what drives a person to a racist position and asking the right questions can sometimes help them along the path of better understanding.

Around 2014 a friend of mine was running from Gazan missiles every night with his kids. His son started bedwetting again and his kids were very scared. They lived in the south very close to Gaza and it is indeed a dangerous area. Back then iron dome wasn't as good and the alarm times are very short. He exclaimed that as far as he cares the IDF should bomb the hell out of Gaza. Fck them for coming after his kids.

If you would have confronted him as a racist he would have become more enraged and probably would have moved to the right.

I asked him how a Palestinian father in Gaza would feel about that. He initially gave some kickback on that so I stressed the difference between Hamas and the civilian population which made him see that his statement was of rage that doesn't represent who he is.

I'm not saying you should tolerate racism. I'm saying you should understand people, listen to their motivations and logic. Talk to them individually and understand where they are coming from. Snap judgements are very problematic and overly simplistic.

Re: Chatham House Rule is suddenly everywhere in the Bay Area

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I will put every person in precisely one out of two boxes at my discretion, and they will be happy about it". Example: "I believe there are two kinds of people in the world, the righteous and the despicable. You belong with the despicable, I decided. If you disagree, you are woke".

The amount of inferences and insinuations you draw is a perfect example of why the Chatham House Rule is needed. I wonder how biologists discuss the issue if one hypothesis is outright forbidden. Note also that Ketanji Brown Jackson evaded the question when asked in a hearing.

I used a made up but analogous example to see how the anti-trans rhetoric is intrinsically closed up to discussion.

It is a group of people deciding unilaterally what other people are without room for any alternatives. Say what you want against trans people, but at least they only identify themselves and ask to be allowed to exist.

Do you want to make an argument about bathrooms or sports whatever? Fine. But don't start it by de facto invalidating their existence, because that eliminates any room for a productive conversation.

Post reply on HN